Posted
by
timothyon Thursday April 02, 2009 @03:07PM
from the bee-ess-dee-like dept.

Jimmy Zimms writes "Microsoft's ASP.NET MVC is an extension built on the core of ASP.NET that brings some of the popular practices and ease of development that were popularized by Ruby on Rails and Django to the .NET developers.
Scott Guthrie, the inventor of ASP.NET, just announced that
Microsoft is open sourcing the ASP.NET MVC stack under the MS-PL license. 'I'm excited today to announce that we are also releasing the ASP.NET MVC source code under the Microsoft Public License (MS-PL). MS-PL is an OSI-approved open source license. The MS-PL contains no platform restrictions and provides broad rights to modify and redistribute the source code.' Here's the text of the MS-PL.

Thank god someone said it. Ya know, HALF of the posts on here so far are "I wont trust MS" or some other closed-mind bullshit from Linux fanbois who MUST have it compatible with the GPL otherwise they piss their pants.

If you take a step back and look at it, it is an amazing licence coming from Microsoft to use on something like this. The only issue the GPL has with it is its slight copyleft policies...go read the copyleft wiki to see if that's really a bad thing: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Copyleft [wikipedia.org]

Not really. They can create a new license (call it MS-PL v2 for convenience). However, they can't change the MS-PL itself without needing to re-certify it; it would automatically be a new version.

Additionally, they can't do any kind of "retroactive" change to the licensing. They can state that all of their MS-PL code is now MS-PL v2 code, and not available to anybody with brown eyes if they want. However, the old code is already distributed; they can't revoke that.

Yeah... the M$ specific license could just be the arrogance of M$ for not using any other established/competitor's license, and for their lawyers to pass a bigger check because a whole "new license text".

Now, I don't know almost anything about the product being open sourced, but it would only matter if that product could be really usable standalone outside Windows platforms (what is the utility of opening the source code of a single module of a big stack like.NET?): Sadly, most M$ products seem to be unnat

I really don't/want/ to like the MS-PL or anything Microsoft, but I read it, and re-read it, and I can't see anything wrong with it. In fact, at the risk of being modded to oblivion, I gotta' say it's a far cry easier to understand than the GPL license, seems straightforward, and truly "open." It seems roughly as open as the BSD license. It doesn't even require you to open your own code under the same license. What am I missing? Is this a late April Fools' joke?

It's the BSD license with one major change: it acknowledges software patents, and provides bi-directional protection from them. Specifically: * You receive a royalty-free patent license to use anything covered by the MS-PL.
* If anybody sues you over a patent in software covered by the MS-PL, they lose the patent license mentioned above.
* You must retain all patent notices (as well as copyright, attribution, and trademark notices) when you redistribute the software.
* Patents ap

For the simple reason it is worded pretty much like the BSD license, only it doesn't demand you name the copyright holders. When I open source stuff and people contribute, there are multiple people who own copyright on all the bits of code. The BSD license (at least the template on Codeplex) really only lets you enter one copyright holder. MS-PL is worded so that you don't have to list every single contributor.

It doesn't even require you to open your own code under the same license

In fact that is the only area where one might make a reasonable objection, the lack of duty to redistribute source code, but the GP doesn't even take that road and criticizes the entire license simply because it was written by Microsoft. Not every OSI license is like the GPL and requires redistribution of modification source code, that doesn't mean that the license is "out to get you" it just means that you are free to license your modifications how you please without additional duties or encumbrances. Now,

I thought the point of open source was to make and share useful things. Things like development libraries, controls, frameworks, protocol stacks, and plenty of other useful widgets. Or is the goal really to just get free shit and I'm missing the point?

Luckily the code that you produce with Visual Studio will run on Mono (no recompilations necessary) including code that uses ASP.NET MVC. And with the new support for ASP.NET precompiled sites in Mono (available in Mono 2.4) you do not even need to copy the source code to your target server.

Click "Publish" in visual studio, enter the location for your shared directory, and you have a fully working ASP.NET MVC app running on Linux, without leaving Windows.

We are working on various integration points for Visual Studio that will give developers even more: debugging from Visual Studio remote applications deployed on Linux systems and producing packages ready-for-distribution on Linux.

Publishing straight to a Linux server from Visual Studio? That's a pretty sweet trick right there. Mono is an excellent project, but I've yet to find an IDE I prefer over Visual Studio (aside from out-of-the-box refactoring capabilities, which are pretty weak).

Does mono still have that absolutely asstastic garbage collector that is non-compacting?

You can make mono compatible with silly shit like publishing from visual studio which is useless in a production environment(unless your a complete idiot and let your developers publish directly). So while thats cool and useful for school kids working on class projects, there are far more important things that need to be fixed in mono than visual studio integration.

I think back to all the corporate VB applications I've ever had the pleasure to use.... and can't think of any. Now shitty crappy useless poxy annoying pieces of ignorant-mumpty-who-thought-he-was-a-programmer-because-he-could-click-a-few-toolbars ones, there were loads of.

I agree consistency in development toolkits and so on is a good thing, and making it easier to develop GUIs is a good thing (eg use QTCreator), but the 'ease of use' of VB is not nec

PS. Linux needs a real installer / uninstaller for applications too, and that really means you need to suck it up and implement some sort of a registry for all of your settings. Woops, did I say that?

You just blew any credibility you may have had. The registry was the single worst feature ever implemented in a mainstream OS and has nothing to do with an installer. On top of that it's way easier to install most software under Linux. No CDs, no license keys. Just select the software you want and it's downloaded and installed automajically. Worst case you have to add a URL for a repository.

no, the registry was an improvement over windows.ini files, however where there was once less than a dozen such files, the registry became a place to store fecking everything, to the point where it became a multi-megabyte monster.

That's the moral of this story, it doesn't matter what you use, or how lovely the tool you choose is - someone can turn it into the beast from the black arse of sysadmin hell if they're not careful.

I hear samba is going to use a registry like system for their Samba 4 development.

License keys have nothing to do with the OS - applications could use them on Linux if they wished to. Windows applications can be installed from the web too. Of course, if you want the user to make some installation choices, it can't be done automatically no matter what OS you use.

I'm just slightly concerned that all the work that has been put into the GPL by FSF (of which I'm a member thus a bit biased) and others will be overshadowed - at least in the mainstream - by Microsoft's step into open source. I support organizations' forays into FOSS, but I'm concerned that Microsoft is trying to eventually be perceived as the leader of FOSS development.
And maybe I'm paranoid.

I think Microsoft is certainly going to use "Open Source" as a marketing and PR tool -- as does every other corporation which gets involved in Open Source.

Could they be perceived as the leader? I think they could actually become the leader, and not just in perception -- considering how much code they write, that's just a question of whether that's what they want to do or not. If they committed themselves to it, you couldn't stop them.

GPL isn't the final word on open source licenses. Quite frankly, I'm pleased to see more options and further, I'm glad people are taking the time to think before they just blindly stamp a GPL on their project. GPL is good for some projects, but it isn't good for all.

And maybe I'm paranoid.

You are. If Microsoft starts going open source, it means you've won.

It is the same with the environmental movement. The environmentalists won. Their cause grew from a fringe group of "tree huggers" to something that is

First of all, it won't, because the amount of code that is released under Ms-PL is, in practice, minuscule compared to that under GPL. Furthermore, Ms-PL is mostly only used by Microsoft so far, and perhaps for some OSS projects based on MS technologies, hosted on CodePlex, etc. It doesn't show any signs of spreading beyond those boundaries.

Second, even if it ever does that, why would you care? If Ms-PL will indeed overshadow GPL, then it's still a true open source license; and if Microsoft releases enough

Outside the tech world, nobody cares in the least (it's not even like they open-sourced a end-user program - this is a development framework). Inside the tech world, everybody already knows about the GPL and Linux.

Inherently, the fact that something is F/OSS really only matters to developers. End users may like its features, or security, or the fact that it's free of charge. However, none of those are exclusive to the F/OSS world. Even things like the ability to extend the product are available in proprieta

When I first read the summary title, I thought this was a thread about software which I was interested in, as this may help Mono, which I would very much like to use in on FBSD in place of my Windows ASP.NET servers. Then I read the summary and thought maybe it was more about licensing. Finally I noticed douchebagtimothy's jab at the end and realized this is just a Troll.

Why is it that 'news for nerds, stuff that matters' translates to 'news for GPL fanatics who don't even understand WHY they like GPL?'

Allow me to troll and rant myself for a bit...

To all the twits who scream 'MS IS UP TO SOMETHING THEY SHOULD USE GPL AND BE TRUELY FREE!!!'... go fuck yourself. The license they are using if FAR more free than anything your little hippie daddy Stallmen has ever even considered. Its a lot more focused on accomplishing what you think you're accomplishing with GPL than GPL is.

To all the twits who scream 'NOT GPL COMPATIBLE!'... again, go fuck yourself, your not only wrong, but obviously completely oblivious to the fact that GPL incompatibilities are almost always caused by retarded bullshit clauses in GPL designed to make it as bad for society as AIDS. GPL is virus. A virus that needs to fucking die. Its turned into a far more restrictive license than anything I've ever got from Apple OR Microsoft.

To all the twits who think GPL is an open license.

my final one... go fuck yourselves. GPL is about as open as the proprietary licenses I deal with from Microsoft, RSA, Apple. Those proprietary licenses I can actually negotiate and get what I want out of them for a fee. With GPL that requires me to negotiate with everyone contributor, a practically impossible task for any project large enough for me to bother wanting to use it in another project rather than writing it myself.

GPL just makes people write software over and over again, not reuse it. Someone makes a GPL library, everyone wants to use it and realizes that the licensing is just fucking ridiculous, so they write there own and release it under an actual open source license.

I'm so sick if you retarded 13 year old GPL fanboys who have no ability to think for yourself and all you do is listen to your bleeding heart professors and that fat hippie fuck Stallmen, neither of which are capable of holding a real just that can actually be considered useful to society.

If you've ever even looked at Stallman's home page you should be afraid of him. Most kids go through an 'activist' stage where they fill the need to make things 'better'. Then somewhere along the lines reality sets in and they get out of school and realize theres more to life than the one sided view they had previously. Stallman and his GPL fanatics are like this, except too damn retarded to grow up. Or apparently make themselves appear presentable in public.

Apple, case closed. Having GPL 'protects' projects from corporate abuse is valid depending on your philosophical views. Really, BSD guys may not have cared about its use in macs, but maybe some did feel sad about it. At least the GPL protects against companies complete 'stealing/borrowing/whatever' of the base code without providing any functional enhancements that said company added to the base product.

I always love when this reply comes up in a free software licensing discussion, because it happens every time. So, tell me again, how Apple used so much BSD code in Macs, without ever contributing back or participating in the openness? Feel free to include NeXT.

I bought my home NAS (a Thecus) specifically because it was using linux for firmware. Thanks to that fact, I have hacked my own custom firmware with all the tools and services I need. Thanks to that there is an entire community hacking the Thecus models. Compare that to any BSD based NAS, where you get a binary firmware, which means no tinkering.

You may have heard of this little family of software products called Microsoft Windows. Up until version 6, this proprietary software used substantial amounts of BSD-derived code - specifically in the networking stack.

You might also have heard of Apple's OS X. It's a bit rarer than Windows but still reasonably common. It's entire kernel (much of its core, in fact) was derived from BSD as well (they chose to release the source for some portions of some of their platforms, but it's st

The GPL is a solution for a problem that doesn't exist anymore. Big unix is dead. Open source is here and it has the momentum, but the GPL is dead weight.
What if GPL code suddenly turned to BSD code and Microsoft (or anyone else) could steal it? History has shown that private forks of open source software generally don't work.

No, private forks often work. Look at what Apple did with BSD, what IBM did with OpenOffice and Apache, etc. etc. Also look at what Apple would have done with KHTML if it didn't have to keep it open (I presume what it did with BSD).

The GPL and LGPL are very important for various reasons. Another is that it allows profitable dual-licensing models, such as used by Sun and Nokia. The BSD doesn't allow that. There is a place for both types of licenses.

(3.B) If you bring a patent claim against any contributor over patents that you claim are infringed by the software, your patent license from such contributor to the software ends automatically.

You can bring patent claims, as long you're not claiming THIS software violates your patents.
If you claim the software infringes YOUR patents, and aren't willing to allow that -- then you don't get a free pass on THEIR patents either. Ie: Share and Share alike. Also, your license for the software doesn't terminate -- just your license to the patents. Which brings us to:

(2.B) Patent Grant- Subject to the terms of this license, including the license conditions and limitations in section 3, each contributor grants you a non-exclusive, worldwide, royalty-free license under its licensed patents...

So it's not a one-way non-agression pact. It's a two-way pact. As long as you don't sue them for patent infringement, you can (re)use all of their code without fear of them suing you for patent infringement...
Of course, since THEY are the ones giving YOU the source code, this is really slanted heavily in your favor -- you can have a look before you use it, decide if they violate your patents, and THEN choose to use it OR sue them. They have no such recourse.

My point is that by implementing around the MS-PL you are granting MS the right to define what IP you are able to protect through legal channels.

Other OSI licenses deal with this issue in a variety of ways, but none that I know of hands the right to define patent enforceability to whether or not one vendor - MS in this case - chooses to include the a code invention in their own source tree.

First, they ARE providing something to you: a world-wide, non-exclusive, royalty-free patent license. They can't sue you over patents in their code base; they already gave you a license to them.

Second, if you bring a patent claim against a contributor over code covered by the MS-PL (not just any code they wrote, as you implied) then you don't lose all rights, you only lose the royalty-free patent license from that specific contributor.

Example: Microsoft releases some code (call it code-base A) under MS-PL. It contains patented algorithm X.You take A and extend it. Your extension (code-base B) contains an improvement on X, which you have patented. Call this improved version Y.If Microsoft sues you over Y (which is basically a better X) then they lose the right to use Y, meaning that if Y is upheld they would have to license it from you. Furthermore, even if they win the case and the patent on Y is invalidated, X can still be used free of charge; they can't revoke your license to use it.

This seems a fair way to handle software patents in open-source software; a sort of copyleft scheme applied to patent right rather than copyright.

That Microsoft Shared Source License is open source, but not free software.

This isn't the Shared Source License. It's the Microsoft Public License which is accepted as a free software license by both the OSI and the FSF. You seem to be ranting about something completely unrelated to this article.

You may need to check the definition of Open Source. It doesn't ONLY mean that you can view the source code. It means you can modify it and redistribute it. Before trolling next time, educate yourself here:http://opensource.org/docs/osd [opensource.org]

I believe the patent terms are the main thing that sets MS-PL apart from other F/OSS licenses. On the other hand, if you *don't* sue the contributors, then you can use their patents (in MS-PL code) royalty-free.

AFAIK the GPL3 says you have to open up your patents along with the source. It does not mention challenging the patents of others.

Whenever someone conveys software covered by GPLv3 that they've written or modified, they must provide every recipient with any patent licenses necessary to exercise the rights that the GPL gives them. In addition to that, if any licensee tries to use a patent suit to stop another user from exercising those rights, their license will be terminated.

What this means for users and developers is that they'll be able to work with GPLv3-covered software without worrying that a desperate contributor will try to sue them for patent infringement later. With these changes, GPLv3 affords its users more defenses against patent aggression than any other free software license.

I suppose it *should* be really fast, but combine with all the exceptions in the framework object-oriented layers, the lax approach to memory management (which leads to hundreds of GCs per second), the 'lets be safe' approach to multithreading locks, etc... just be grateful that computers are so unbelieveably fast and memory so cheap nowadays, you'd never have run Java or.net on a computer just a few years ag

you'd never have run Java or.net on a computer just a few years ago unless it was an 'enterprise' app running on a cluster.

I've been running Java on desktop computers for close to a decade. Sure, its slower than hand-crafted assembly, so was C when it took over the world -- the gap has closed largely with better compilers, just as the Java -> C gap has closed in most practical domains for similar reasons, and just like the JavaScript -> (pick your lower level language) gap has with increasingly perfo

While the JRE did include JIT capability roughly a decade ago, it is only in the last few years that its performance has approached that of native code. A few more optimizations were added with each release, but java 1.5.0 was still slower on many benchmarks than.NET 1.1.

Furthermore, the GP's point was that.NET is slow, as Java used to be (and is still generally perceived to be). (More specifically, the implication was that.NET combines the worst of native code and Java.) While the number of runtime chec

[...] to run faster than a binary optimized for generic 386 (or other platform, see below). There's a very short delay as the Just-In-Time compiler converts the intermediate code to machine code, but after the first time this happens the result is cached on your system so it starts instantly.

This program does not support a "wheel group" that restricts who can su to super-user accounts, because that can help fascist system administrators hold unwarranted power over other users.

Yeah, screw security! Who needs passwords! Down with sysadmins!!

I might as well quote the rest of it because it is so juice and nobody will bother to follow the link above:

Why GNU su does not support the wheel group (by Richard Stallman)Sometimes a few of the users try to hold total power over all the rest. Forexample, in 1984, a few users at the MIT AI lab decided to seize power bychanging the operator password on the Twenex system and keep- ing it secret fromeveryone else. (I was able to thwart this coup and give power back to theusers by patching the kernel, but I wouldn't know how to do that in Unix.)

However, occasionally the rulers do tell someone. Under the usual sumechanism, once someone learns the root password who sympathizes with theordinary users, he can tell the rest. The "wheel group" feature would makethis impossible, and thus cement the power of the rulers.

I'm on the side of the masses, not that of the rulers. If you are used tosupporting the bosses and sysadmins in whatever they do, you might find thisidea strange at first.

PS: Just realized that the FreeBSD man-page thingy offers way more man pages than just for FreeBSD. Check it out!

Your "and" is quite misleading there. Looking at that page, they recommend you not use any license that is incompatible with the GNU equivalents - and that even includes licenses which are more free than GNU versions.

Still, GP is right. The FSF does indeed say that Ms-PL is a "free software" license. The fact that they also say "don't use it because it's not compatible with GPL (like everything fucking else!)" is not really relevant.

The GPL is also deliberately incompatible with their competition, particularly including other open licenses. So what's your point? If you think "Open" means "You can do whatever you want", then you're restricting yourself to pretty much just bsd, which is an entirely separate holy war.

Last I checked GPL3 was compatible with the licenses that make up the vast majority of open source projects.
Whether it's compatible with most open source licenses is irrelevant since almost nobody uses anythin but apache, gpl and bsd.

Last I checked GPL3 was compatible with the licenses that make up the vast majority of open source projects.

GPL is the Windows of open source licenses. Whereas Windows is marketing based, GPL is ideology based. They both rely on product lock in. And the world would be better of if their market positions were smaller.

Trust the GPL for a second and it will come in a rip you apart. Just like it did with BSD, taking everything of value while giving nothing back. All in the name of open source fundamentalism.

Am I a bit harsh? Propbably. But you can't deny (well, you can if you are a gpl fundamentalist) that the simila

I can't put GPL code into a BSD project, GPL is intentionally incompatible. Interestingly, in almost exactly the same way that MS-PL is incompatible - both require that you not switch licensing terms when you reuse the code. Gnu seems to take the position that they are the only license in the world that should have any form of "copyleft" restriction, which is odd since they spend a lot of time pointing out the importance and benefit of copyleft restrictions. Copyleft licenses essentially require people

This is an improvement, but it's hardly a compatible license with most other licenses.

Sorry, but this isn't true. That it isn't compatible with the GPL doesn't mean it's incompatible with most other licenses. It's perfectly compatible with the BSD/Apache2/X11/Zlib/etc permissive licenses. You're spreading nonsense.

It's impossible to be compatible with the BSD license and not be compatible with the GPL, because BSD is compatible with the GPL.

Unless you have some strange backwards definition of compatible, under which you would say "the GPL is compatible with the BSD license" because you can take BSD code and relicense it as GPL. However I think most people consider that statement false, while "the BSD is compatible with the GPL" is the true statement.

The fact is that BSD is compatible with the MS-PL and BSD is compatible with GPL. The BSD is compatible with a *lot* of licenses, including closed-source with a NDA.

Step 3 is illegal. It violates the GPL license. You are not allowed to distribute GPL licensed code (the improvements the GPL guys did) under a non GPL license.

That is the whole point of the grandparent saying that the GPL is a black hole. Because it really is. It is the leecher license of open source licenses, wanting other licenses to be one-way "compatible" with it so that it can leech code from them, but not wanting to give anything in return.

I find it interesting that you accuse the FSF of doing word games by saying "the GPL is compatible with the BSD license" while apparently defending the original poster who literally says "the MS-PL is compatible with the BSD license".

In my opinon the two statements are equally wrong, yet apparently people will only attact the one on the side they disagree with.

(D) If you distribute any portion of the software in source code form, you may do so only under this license by including a complete copy of this license with your distribution. If you distribute any portion of the software in compiled or object code form, you may only do so under a license that complies with this license.

I'm confused with. Does that mean that if you use my library or incorpor

You cannot put MS-PL code into a BSD program. If you could, then you could put it into a GPL program, since you can put BSD code into a GPL program!

The two licenses are IDENTICAL. BSD is compatible with both of them. They are both incompatible with the BSD and with each other.

Pretending that somehow the original BSD code vaporizes and disappears when somebody uses it in a GPL program, but this magical effect does not happen with the MS-PL program is a nice piece of FUD, too.

It is just additionally licensed as GPL and they happen to don't contradict each other

A fine bit of propaganda you've got there. You would make a fine politician! You see, you glossed over the bit about "additionally licensed as GPL". What additionaly actually means is that your code has now been "enhanced" in a way that makes it impossible to move back into your BSD codebase without GPL'ing the BSD code.

You can use weasel words all you want, but the bottom line is GPL is one-way. It is only compatible s

If you take BSD code and combine it with MS-PL, the result is not BSD licensed. This should be pretty obvious, because everybody, including you, know that MS-PL code cannot be combined with GPL code. Since BSD code can, MS-PL is not BSD and not "compatible" with it.

Trying to pretend they are different is propaganda, whether the FSF or an astroturfer does it. Get the facts.

I never made the claim you can back port MS-PL code to BSD... though the licenses are similar enough that you just might be able to. Thinking about it, it is actually rather hard to backport anything into BSD, at least if you take the license very literally (whatever I mean by that...).

I really don't see why the parent was modded insightful. I realize that this is Slashdot, but shouldn't we at least RTFL (Read the Fraking License) before we say that it was somehow slipped in under the collective noses of the OSI? The text [opensource.org] of the license is actually quite simple (it is less than one page). It basically says that you are granted permission under Copyright to distribute the contributions of others (i.e. the Software) OR yours (or not) for any purpose whatsoever and that if you have patents c

I agree. If the Mono project folds that code into mod-mono for Apache then ASP.NET might finally begin to give Ruby on Rails and PHP a real run for their money. Perhaps that is what Microsoft intended all along. I have used the pre-releases of MVC in a few experimental for-fun projects and it is actually quite good albeit not completely original (borrowing heavily from mono-rail, Ruby on Rails, and other previous implementations of RESTful MVC web frameworks). The GP might want to give it a whirl before wri

So what if it's a commercial product. The world is ran on commercial products. Not everything has to be developed by individuals, non-commercial organizations, or non-profit foundations. A good portion of Linux was developed, sponsored by, or somehow made possible (either directly or indirectly) by companies with commercial products. Just because it's commercial doesn't mean it can't be open sourced or made freely available. The.NET framework is freely (as in without additional cost) to Windows users

Umm, why not? Seriously, you just drove a Hummer* through your own argument. It is not something that can only be used in conjunction with a commercial product. It can run on another OS. It doesn't require the.NET framework.

Is your anti-MS bias REALLY that strong that you could KNOW you're wrong and post anyhow?**

* In keeping with/. analogy guidelines, if anybody has a bigger car to suggest let me know.** Really, I'm not new here, I promise.

Scott, this is fantastic news! The EULA in the installer seems incompatible with this milestone, however:

"2. Scope of License. The software is licensed, not sold. This agreement only gives you some rights to use the software. Microsoft reserves all other rights. Unless applicable law gives you more rights despite this limitation, you may use the software only as expressly permitted in this agreement. In doing so, you must comply with any technical limitations in the software that only allow you to use it in certain ways. You may not

* work around any technical limitations in the software;

* reverse engineer, decompile or disassemble the software, except and only to the extent that applicable law expressly permits, despite this limitation;

* publish the software for others to copy;

* rent, lease or lend the software; or

* __transfer the software or this agreement to any third party.__"

We rely on ASP.NET MVC for a couple of products that we sell to customers (for them to install locally, not in a SaaS-type environment). That EULA clause would appear to prevent us from re-distributing ASP.NET MVC in any form (even the pre-packaged installer). Please could you clarify?

2nd time today I've nailed you, but this is getting old. Have you tried cordless bungee jumping? Blog about that, wouldja?

If you (as a user or contributor) don't violate the license, you have a "non-exclusive, worldwide, royalty-free license under its licensed patents to make, have made, use, sell, offer for sale, import, and/or otherwise dispose of its contribution in the software or derivative works of the contribution in the software"

Yes I have. And dear dog, do I wish I were lucky enough to have used it professionally. Although it looks like Seaside has been around longer than that the web site says:

Is Seaside free? What license does Seaside use?

As of the Seaside 2.5 (8 January 2004), Seaside has been under the MIT license. This means that you can use it to build commercial apps, royalty free, with no restrictions. Note that, besides Squeak, this also applies to commercial Smalltalks such as Cincom Smalltalk and Dolphin Smalltalk.

So out of sheer luck in speaking in broad generalisims, I'll stick with my 2004 number:)